Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-22 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading-, I' V 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: May 22, 2006 Location: Police Community Room, 15 Union Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RE), Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Neil Sullivan (NS). Members Absent: Susan DeMatteo (SD) Associate Members Present: Brant Ballantyne (BB). Town Planner Chris Reilly did not attend the meeting. Also Present: Michael Schloth Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, Reading, MA Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place, North Reading, MA 01864 Mr. Paul Fontes, 89 Highland Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Ted Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA, 01745 There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no public comments. RH moved to approve the minutes of 4/10/06 as amended tonight. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Jonathan Barnes (JB) arrived and took his seat with the Board. Page 1 of 12 Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) - 55 Walkers Brook Drive (Map 46, Lots 8, 9), Walkers Brook LLC Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. He said he had spoken with the Town Planner about this ANR and the Town Planner had said it was OK. RH moved to endorse the ANR. NS seconded. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo asked to comment on the ANR before the Board voted. 1. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how this plan fits in with the current building on the site and its required parking spaces. It was his understanding that the new lot contains parking spaces that were created for the existing building and his concern was that the building would no longer meet the town's parking requirements. 2. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the applicant had thought of making the triangle-shaped piece of land on the other side of New Crossing Road into a separate lot. Mr. Latham said parking is not a condition the ANR. He added that each lot will stand on its own in meeting parking requirements. Regarding the triangular piece of land, Mr. Latham said that it was not part of the ANR under discussion. It is divided by the town's public way and is a lot in and of itself. JS asked if the Board can endorse the ANR if a specific building does not meet its parking requirements. Mr. Latham said all the lot needs to qualify for endorsement of the ANR is the proper frontage parking does not enter into it. He said there is nothing in the regulations that requires parking be shown on an ANR plan. JB said in this case the subdivision is putting parking spaces of an existing building into a different lot. He asked Mr. Latham if it might not be an issue of concern to the Board if the reconfiguration they are being asked to endorse makes that building non-conforming with regards to the Town's parking requirements. Mr. Latham said if through the subdivision a lot is left with inadequate parking then under law it would be illegal to transfer title to different owners and it would all have to come back before the Board. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The Board signed the plans. Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) 76 Prospect Street (Map 60, Lot 20), Joseph and Gina M. Healey Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. He said this was an oversized lot and the owners want to build a second home. - RE moved to endorse the ANR. Page 2 of 12 JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Zoning Workshop Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 4.9.6.2.h to accelerate allowable residential development from 2009 to 2007 Attorney Brad Latham and Mr. Ted Moore appeared for Johnson Woods. Mr. Latham summarized the benefits of accelerating the residential development of a strip of land between Johnson Woods and Woburn's Inwood development. • The market for commercial development is not there. The Inwood development itself has been rezoned from office/commercial to residential. • The sooner started the sooner finished for the town that means seeing tax money sooner and for the neighbors that means seeing construction equipment gone sooner. • The development will have a 15% affordable housing component. • The units will be two-bedrooms or less which means few or no school children. The Board reminded Mr. Latham that at a previous meeting [3/13/2006] he had said he was going to find out if commercial traffic from Reading would have access through the Inwood Development. Mr. Latham apologized that he did not have that information tonight. RH asked if there would be residential access from Reading. Mr. Latham said the legal right exists but it would probably still require some kind of permit from Woburn. The Board reminded Mr. Latham that at that same previous meeting [3/13/2006] the Town Manager raised the issue of the affordable units and there was some discussion of increasing the percentage above 15%. The Town Manager and attending Selectmen had asked for more information on this issue. Mr. Latham said raising the percentage above 15% would not work economically. Mr. Moore agreed. The consensus of the Board was that they wanted to have this amendment on the warrant for the Fall 2006 Town Meeting. The Board agreed that there were many benefits to accelerating the development but they needed more information. In particular: • Would commercial traffic access be allowed from Reading through Inwood? • Would residential access be guaranteed for residential traffic from Reading through Inwood? • Would Inwood have access through Johnson Woods? The Board emphasized that it is in the best interests of all concerned to have the language of this article in its final form sooner rather than later. The warrant closes 9/26/06. Page 3 of 12 The Board scheduled another Zoning Workshop for this amendment for the meeting of 6/19/06. Design Standards and Guidelines The Board noted that there are two ways to approach this item. 1. as providing aesthetic standards and guidelines to provide developers and builders in general a point of reference 2. as a response to Ms. Sally Hoyt's memo [read into the 9/26/2005 minutes] which the Board understood as a call for standards and guidelines in the context of 40B developments - Archstone in particular. Aesthetics. When Mr. Jonathan Edwards was Town Planner, an intern wrote a document on Design Standards and Guidelines. It was the consensus of the Board to use this document as a starting point for their own Design Standards and Guidelines document. The intern's document is available on the Planning website. RH suggested the Board identify what they would like their document to accomplish and then assign a Board member to work with the Town Planner to develop the Board's position more fully and to set a timetable for the document's completion. The Board agreed. The Board noted that this document would cover structures in all zones not only Business- B. JS suggested the Board keep in mind whether specific issues can be better controlled through zoning bylaws rather than design standards. Ms. Sally Hoyt's Memo. The Board appreciated Ms. Hoyt's frustration with the Archstone development on West Street (see attached). Archstone is a 40B development and 40Bs are able to sidestep local bylaws. JS suggested the Board respond to Ms. Hoyt with a letter presenting the Board's position and pointing out: • Zoning does not cover the 40B issue but the Board is working on various ways to move the Town closer to the 10% affordable unit threshold. • The Board's intent as regards a Design Standards and Guidelines document is to provide a reference to builders on aesthetic issues. The Board agreed. BB suggested attaching a copy of the 40B laws to emphasize what zoning cannot do. Amendment to Accessory Apartments RH reminded the Board that the article for this amendment was tabled due to some confusion over the affordability component. Namely, the Board thought accessory apartments were automatically accepted as affordable by the State but apparently the Page 4 of 12 process is more complicated. Nevertheless, RH said an amendment with an affordable unit component is still worth pursuing and he would like to come back to the Board in June with a revised amendment. The Board agreed and looked forward to reviewing the revised amendment. The Board briefly reviewed the issues surrounding accessory apartments. JS reminded the Board that the Town Planner believes most existing accessory apartments were constructed without the required special permit and the Board needs to think of how to add these apartments to the town's inventory. He suggested the Board review the Town of Barnstable's amnesty program. BB said offering amnesty does not mean the apartment is up to code. JB asked what would be a homeowner's incentive to apply for the special permit. JS said people might apply if the apartment was for a family member - an elderly parent for instance. If the owner charges whatever the State requires to have the unit qualify as affordable then it could be counted against the town's 10% threshold. NS asked if a homeowner would be inclined to report rental income from a family member or charge a family member at all. It seems to be another reason not to pull a permit. The Board agreed that getting accessory apartments on the inventory was good for the town, but they needed to think on how to make it worthwhile for individual homeowners. RH suggested asking the Town Assessors for information on how they would go about re- assessing a property with an accessory apartment. The Board agreed. The consensus of the Board was that despite the challenges it is still an idea worth pursuing if it means adding more affordable units to the inventory. Amendment to Planned Residential Development (PRD) The Board discussed tying an affordable component to the PRD through "cluster zoning". RH said cluster zoning is already allowed in the bylaws but no developer wants to touch it because as it is currently written it forces them to go before Town Meeting for approval for a zoning map change making it a long, onerous process. Town Meeting keeps a tight rein on it because they are worried about increased density anywhere in town. RH said he would like to make it easier for developers and add an affordability component to make it more palatable to Town Meeting. RH said he would try to have something ready for the Board to review by the 6/19/06 meeting. Lot Coverage JS said he had told Town Meeting there are three issues with Lot Coverage: 1. Contradictory bylaws. 2. Unclear definitions. 3. No guidance on impervious cover. Page 5of12 BB said Reading bases its Lot Coverage on a lot's Principle Building only. Other towns - he mentioned North Andover and Chelmsford - do it differently. North Andover, for example, bases it on both the Principle and any Accessory buildings on a lot. He noted that Chelmsford's and North Andover's Lot Coverage regulations are similar to Reading's in that none of the towns regulations has an impervious cover component. JS asked BB to review the current bylaws and note any references to Lot Coverage with an eye towards 1. Identifying all references and inconsistencies, and 2. Recommending fixes including clearer definitions. BB agreed to do so. BB said he would not be able to attend the next (6/19/06) meeting. By-Laws Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review: Minor/Major Amendment The consensus of the Board was to add definitions of what constitutes a Major and a Minor amendment into the zoning bylaws. This would require Town Meeting approval. As there is no separate section for definitions the consensus of the Board was to add the amendment to Section 4.3.3 as subsection 13 (i.e. 4.3.3.13) JS asked JB to draft the amendment and send it to the Town Planner. JB agreed to do so. By-Laws Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review: Site Plan Review Waiver - Change of Use Category The Board discussed whether or not when granting waivers they should be requiring "same use" and not just "same use category". Example: both funeral homes and restaurants fall under the category "Consumer Services". RH suggested that somewhere in the change of use language the phrase "and does not result in an adverse impact" needs to be added (or words to that effect). If the Board decides there is an adverse impact we can demand a full site plan review. JB expressed his concern that waivers are obtained without the benefit of a public hearing and therefore any "adverse impact" would be entertained without input from the public. Attorney Mark Favaloro said in his opinion small businesses like the flexibility a waiver offers. He said it can be daunting to have to prepare for a full site plan review. BB said the Board is looking for public input without the formality of a full review. JS suggested adding a requirement that abutters must be noticed for waiver requests. This suggestion met with general approval and JS said he would discuss it with the Town Planner. Page 6of12 Setbacks This item was not addressed. Administrative Review Sailor Tom's Way Definitive Covenant Endorsement Benjamin Lane Definitive Covenant Endorsement The Board was uncomfortable signing either of the two endorsements without guidance from the Town Planner and decided to defer both until a future meeting. 519 Main Street Approved Site Plan Minor Modification Attorney Mark Favaloro represented the applicant. This concerns a Minor Modification to the drainage system and is a continuation of a discussion began at the meeting of 5/8/06. Mr. Favaloro said the issue is whether the applicant must modify the site's drainage system to conform to DEP storm water guidelines. Mr. Favaloro said they have submitted a letter from their engineer - Griffin Engineering - stating that the drainage system is working well. Mr. Favaloro submitted the letter to the Board. The applicant, Mr. Paul Fontes, said that during the recent rainstorms the drainage system performed very well. Mr. Favaloro said they are asking the Board to modify the relevant language of the Board's decision to provide that only in the event of a failure would a study of the drainage requirements be required. The consensus of the Board was that more than a study would be required - the installation of a DEP compliant drainage system must be installed and the language must reflect this. The Board and applicant agreed on the following language: In the event that the present drainage system fails the applicant shall thereafter forthwith submit complete drainage calculations of a system that demonstrates full compliance with DEP storm water guidelines.... Upon approval of the Town Engineer or designee applicant shall install said system meeting DEP storm water guidelines. JS said the Board is in essence being asked to approve the drainage system in place. He asked if the Board is approving it even though it doesn't meet DEP storm water guidelines, or are we saying it does meet DEP storm water guidelines, or are we saying it doesn't need to meet DEP storm water guidelines. Mr. Favaloro said the applicant is submitting that it does not need to meet DEP storm water guidelines because the current system works. Mr. Fontes said that DEP is not interested in this site because DEP's concern is conservation areas and this site is not near wetlands. Page 7of12 The consensus of the Board was to follow what they remember the previous Town Engineer always said about the town's drainage systems, namely, that the Town of Reading requires all storm water systems to meet DEP standards to the greatest extent possible. The Board considered deferring the matter until they could speak with the Town Planner. Mr. Favaloro suggested making the matter subject to the approval of the Town Planner. RH moved to approve the Minor Modification to the language of the site plan review as described above provided that this language is acceptable to the Town Planner. If the Town Planner does not find the language acceptable then the Minor Modification is not approved. The Board emphasized that they are asking the Town Planner to determine both that the modification meets the intent and requirements of the bylaws and that the Board has the authority to approve the modification under the DEP storm water guidelines. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Official Zoning Map Adoption The Board decided to defer action on this item until they have had a chance to discuss the matter with the Town Planner Subdivision Regulations The consensus of the Board was to ask the Town Planner to add the Pubic Hearing for approving the changes to the Subdivision Regulations to the agenda of the 7/10/06 meeting. Canopy Illumination. The Board added this item to the agenda. They wanted to discuss it among themselves before asking the ZBA for their opinion. JS reminded the Board that they had recently denied an applicant's plan to illuminate a canopy because the Board said it was illuminating a sign on the canopy [minutes of 3/27/06, 178 Main St.]. The Building Inspector said it was not a sign and he allowed the illumination. The consensus of the Board was that there is language in the bylaw that makes the Building Inspector's decision questionable. This is not about illumination that shines down from a canopy that is allowed for safety the issue here is illumination through a canopy. JS offered to draft a letter to the ZBA asking for their opinion and supplying the Board's interpretation and supporting verbiage from the bylaw. JS said if the ZBA rejects our interpretation then the Board would have to discuss whether the bylaw should be changed or if the Board would have to make it a condition of future decisions that no canopy lighting is allowed that is not there for safety reasons. He was looking for the consensus of the Board. Page 8 of 12 RH said he endorses the Building Inspector's interpretation because you should not prohibit lighting in a sign bylaw. JB said that the issue is that is light shining through a sign on the canopy we can't have it both ways. JS said whether or not this case is a sign is one issue; if they took the sign off, the light shining through is another issue. Then it is like an illuminated band. The consensus of the Board was that JS should. send the letter to the ZBA asking for their interpretation. Town Planner, Town Manager directives and CPDC JS said he planned to meet with the Town Manager to discuss the Board's concerns with the Town Manager's directive that the Town Planner should not be writing decisions or approving landscaping plans. RH recalled the Town Manager saying the Board should be requiring enforcement actions up-front and not conditioning then subject to staff approval. He said the Board agreed with the Town Manager but felt that how they were to enforce compliance was an issue. JB said the Town Planner helps the Board in preparing the more complicated draft decisions. RH asked how much of what the Board conditions should be negotiated up-front by town staff. The consensus of the Board was that they have made changes to address the Town Manager's concerns for example: adding pre-meetings between the Town Planner and Building Inspector to discuss compliance issues but they feel the real issue is enforcement. Other Matters JS said he sensed the Board has been feeling overwhelmed lately addressing the applications for reviews etc... and he was concerned the Board has had little time to address what should be their chief concern: planning issues. In an effort to give the Board more time to focus on planning issues, JS suggested two options: 1. Increase meetings to every Monday night 2. Create a subcommittee devoted exclusively to planning issues Regarding the first option, the Board was willing to discuss trying it on an experimental basis for a few months. The consensus of the Board was that if they did increase their schedule to every Monday then a determined effort must be made to have meetings end at a reasonable hour preferably before 11:00PM. JS said that if the Board did decide to go to meetings every Monday, every other meeting should be devoted to planning issues. Page 9of12 Regarding the second option, the consensus of the Board was they were not sure they had the authority to appoint committees without the prior approval of the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager. JS suggested expanding the Planning-Issues-Only meetings to members of the public who have expressed an interest in planning issues in the past. He suggested members of the Master Plan committee as an example. He also suggested the possibility of expanding the number of associate CPDC members. Town Planner Review This item was not addressed. RH moved to adjourn. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:55 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on July 10, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on July 10, 2005. Signed as approved, D. Howard, Secretary U/4 Date Page 10 of 12 September 26, 2005 TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING BYLAWS TO PROTECT THE TOWN FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ESPECIALLY 40B AND OTHERS I attended the presentation of the Ad Hoc Committee's Master Plan before the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, September 20, 2005, and commended its members for their excellent presentation. Perhaps we should consider incorporating my recommendations into the Master Plan. Following my discussions with the Board of Selectmen, and the Town Manager, I am recommending amendments to Reading's zoning bylaws to protect the Town, its abutters, and neighbors from future 40B projects like the Archstone development. The developer had plenty of acreage to work with, but he chose to position the structures on the roadway. The Town should have stronger regulations that would prohibit the placing of structures so close to the roadway. We should require 50 ft. frontage, as well as a 50 ft. setback from abutters' property line. Future developers should position the lower structures by the roadway, and the taller structures at the rear of the development. The design of future structures must be in keeping with the town's neighborhood. We must initiate amendments to zoning bylaws that would mandate the approval of the design, prior to the granting of permits. The Archstone development on West St. was a disaster, and it violated the property rights of abutters and neighbors. We must do everything in our power to amend zoning bylaws, and initiate stronger safeguards. THANK YOU SALLY M. HOYT September 26, 2005 TO: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO ZONING BYLAWS I AM FULLY AWARE THAT 40B DEVELOPMENTS CAN OVERRIDE THE TOWN'S REGULATIONS AND ZONING BYLAWS. HOWEVER, I STRONGLY FEEL THAT WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, WE WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO NEGOTIATE WITH DEVELOPERS TO GET WHAT WE WANT; NAMELY: Page 11 of 12 1. TO ALLOW THE TOWN TO APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT; 2. TO ENCOURAGE THE NUMBER OF FEET THEY MUST BUILD FROM THE ROADWAY; 3. TO CONTROL WHERE THE TALLER STRUCTURES MAY BE POSITIONED ON THE SITE; 4. TO ENCOURAGE A FAVORABLE SETBACK FROM ABUTTERS' PROPERTY LINE; AND 5. TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF STORIES IN A DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU SALLY M. HOYT Page 12 of 12